Author: Spocko

How the right uses the joy of hate to stop action on climate change

by Spocko

For decades powerful forces have willfully exploited people’s misunderstanding of science and their feelings of being belittled by others.

The right wing media radio and TV hosts tap into listeners’ feeling of inadequacy and turns that into a weapon to use to attack scientists, liberals and anyone who represents them.

“Those smarty pants liberals think they are smarter than you! They aren’t! They aren’t perfect! Look at how they were wrong in the past about the climate! Why listen to them now?”

Greta represents all the people who laughed at them. She is also young and female.

“How dare a 16-year-old girl tell you what to do? Who does she think she is?”

Encouraging people to be aggrieved is a powerful part of right wing media appeal. Digby, Atrios and Sam Seder have pointed this out for years. They also push the underlying theme that liberal elites have been laughing at conservative listeners. Now that they are in power it’s time to rub that laughter into their smug liberal faces.

People ask me. “Why do people deny human caused climate change?”  One answer I give is obvious.

• Their job/income depends on disputing the science.

Some ask, “Why do people argue about the science that shows climate change?”  One answer is that it is a way to slow down change from the status quo.

• If everyone listened to scientists and acted right now millions will have to change their lives and disrupt the status quo. They think it’s too much too fast. 

If they respond, “I get those reasons, but what’s behind the vicious attacks on Greta?” I have a different kind of answer. It makes them happy.

• They enjoy sticking it to people who made them feel “less than” in the past. Greta represents all the people who ever made them feel wrong, stupid, weak and inadequate.

My Vulcan side thinks evidence and illustrations of  rising sea levels should convince people. But my human side reminds me that emotions drive most human actions and behaviors. If I want to get humans to act on my facts I must also find a way to get their emotional support for them.

The people who want to block action on climate change will cast doubt on the facts but also use strong human emotions to attack the people telling those facts.

It’s not about the science, it’s about the people 

When I was a little Vulcan I was thrilled by the idea of going into space. I have always been amazed at what you could learn with science and what technology could do. (Today’s example, NASA finds ‘water ice’ just below the surface of Mars.

As I got older I figured out I didn’t have the aptitude and brains for pure science nor the mechanical ability for technology. Instead I ended up helping those who did do this work explain it to others.

One of the things I learned is that not everyone responds the same to being unable to grasp science. Especially if they felt belittled when talking with scientists and technologists about their work.

And belittling happens. I’ve worked with very smart men in science and technology who were condescending to everyone they didn’t think were as smart as they were. I showed them what their condescension looks like and how it can come back to hurt them. When they saw the problem they  worked to fix it. But not everyone cares about how they come across to others. “It’s not my problem they don’t understand!”

The people who want to deny climate change have found the right buttons to push for different groups of people.  For one group they say, “Ignore the science to keep your jobs.”

To another group they say, “Argue about the science because it’ll slow change.”

For yet another group they say, “Attack this person who represents everyone who made you feel stupid, weak and inadequate in the past. Have fun with it!”  These people love to attend Trump’s Nuremberg hoedowns.

It doesn’t matter if in the future cities will be underwater because they didn’t act. They can have fun attacking Greta RIGHT NOW.  

Sticking it to the scientists and liberals who made them feel “less than” in the past is a great feeling.  When a powerful group leader attacks Greta too that gives them great joy.  (Read about Identity Fusion here)

People on the left also understand the joy that comes from mocking our enemies. A world of memes shows what fun that can be. However, there is a difference.  In most cases we can point to the significant crimes and morally repugnant acts our targets have committed that justify our mocking attacks on them.

Giving a face to an issue to create an enemy is an old strategy. Chanting hate slogans and directing people’s insecurities toward a person or group strengthens their hate.
But hate isn’t the only binding emotion. Watch crowds chanting “Lock her up!” They look happy, even joyful.  The right is using the joy of the hate to create solidarity for their beliefs and stop action on climate change.

We need to understand how and why individuals act the way they do if we want to change their behavior or stop it. I believe we will eventually get people to understand and change their behavior.

As Craig Mazin, the writer for the Chernobyl mini-series said, “People can get away with a lie for a very long time, but the truth just doesn’t care.” The people denying that humans are causing climate change can’t keep the truth at bay forever.

Greta is pushing the truth in their faces. That makes me happy. Joyful even.

.

Why we must punish the Trump mob for witness intimidation

by Spocko

I’m happy Trump’s witness intimidation was called out in the impeachment report.   (Link)

The President engaged in this effort to intimidate these public servants to prevent them from cooperating with Congress’ impeachment inquiry.  He issued threats, openly discussed possible retaliation, made insinuations about their character and patriotism, and subjected them to mockery and derision—when they deserved the opposite.  The President’s attacks were broadcast to millions of Americans—including witnesses’ families, friends, and coworkers.

It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress.  This prohibition applies to anyone who knowingly “uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades” another person in order to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.”  Violations of this law can carry a criminal sentence of up to 20 years in prison.|

The report called out specific ways he intimidated witnesses before during and after the most recent hearings. What it doesn’t include is his history of doing this during the Mueller investigation. I want witness tampering to be part of his impeachment because he needs to be punished for it.  As the report says:

The President’s campaign of intimidation risks discouraging witnesses from coming forward voluntarily, complying with mandatory subpoenas for documents and testimony, and disclosing potentially incriminating evidence in this inquiry and future Congressional investigations.

Impeachment isn’t just a technical legal process. It’s a political process. And it’s an on-going media event. 

The logic of the law rules the courtroom. For the politic part of impeachment the public needs more. The public needed to see the damage to individuals from his attacks on them. They needed to hear how he put himself first, instead of the country.

The public needed to hear people describing how Trump demanded favors and tribute for his own personal benefit. People know Presidents use the power of the office to threaten countries. But it was different in this case because the power was used just to benefit Trump.

People saw and heard the competence and sincerity of the professionals testifying. They also saw and heard Trump’s craven, baseless attacks on Amb. Yovanovitch and Lt. Colonel Vindman.

These attacks disgusted people of almost all political stripes. Even Fox News thought Trump’s tweets strayed dangerously close to witness intimidation.(link)

Chairman Schiff stopped the hearing to read Trump’s tweet and address it because he knew it was important. I’m glad he did. It allowed the country to see how intimidation impacts people. People can imagine themselves in this position. Many deal with some level of intimidation in their daily lives.

Monday also brought a story of Trump’s attacks on former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. link

My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. “It’s almost impossible to describe” what it’s like, she told me. “It’s like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening.”

“But it’s also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he’s still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”

Trump used Page’s story to attack her via Twitter.

When Lisa Page, the lover of Peter Strzok, talks about being “crushed”, and how innocent she is, ask her to read Peter’s “Insurance Policy” text, to her, just in case Hillary loses. Also, why were the lovers text messages scrubbed after he left Mueller. Where are they Lisa?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2019

I read under that tweet people continuing to attack Page. They used the tweet as an opportunity to reinforce their false information about what she did. When the IG report comes out and clears her, will they stop repeating that misinformation? The main stream media repeated it because it’s “news.” But even if they debunk it they are still repeating it. What is to be done?

Trump’s Mob. Movies vs. real life

This weekend I watched The Irishman. It showed the intimidation tactics used by the mob.  I watched men–it was always men–threaten and kill people. The killing sent a message to others. “This guy disrespected someone higher up. This is the price he paid. Don’t disrespect us or you will pay the same price.”

I tire of constantly bringing Trump and his cronies into every experience, but I saw Trump World in the Mob World as portrayed in the movie. (It’s based on the book, I Heard You Paint Houses: Frank “The Irishman” Sheeran & Closing the Case on Jimmy Hoffa )

Now I could draw the parallels between how the mob rigged the Presidential election to get JFK in power and how Russian helped Trump, but that’s an uneven parallel. The point I want to make is this: Trump’s part of a mob. His lawyers are mob lawyers, including Bill Barr.

Fox News is Mob Media. They are the mobsters who repeat the slurs and attacks on people who go against The Boss. They spread the intimidation and fear to keep others in line.

Who is Trump’s mob boss? Look at who he shows respect to. We don’t know exactly who has the most leverage over Trump but his actions point to a combination of Putin and Russian oligarchs. To extend the analogy they are the men “Downtown.”

How Do We Fight Mobs?

The Irishmen showed us the story from the mob’s point of view.  It was interesting, but I really don’t want to root for the men who kill others because someone didn’t show enough respect to The Bosses or hurt the profits of The Bosses.  In the movie Scorsese freezes the scene at certain points to identify  real-life characters and how and when they were killed. It’s jarring, but it made a point about how the mob punishes people. Loss of life.

He also showed how our society punishes people for breaking certain laws. Some characters went to prison after the FBI built a case against them. Incarceration. Loss of freedom.

In the end Scorsese attempted to show how families punish people who do terrible things in the service of people who demand loyalty and respect on the way to increasing their personal profit.  Loss of affection

I focus on witness intimidation because it is signature mob move. It has its own lingo and history of success.  We all know the phrase, “Nice family you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to them.” It was almost exactly what someone said to Stormy Daniels.

“A guy walked up on me and said to me, ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,’” she said. “And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.” Time  Who directed that threat to her? Individual One ordered it.

Reminder: Michael Cohen is in prison.

Cohen  committed crimes following  the directions of his boss. Host his freedom for that decision.
As a society we aren’t going to go out and shoot people in the head, like the mob, so we use other tools. I look forward to Trump losing his freedom.

How Trump’s Mob Media Helps Him

Trump knows the various forms of secret leverage Putin and the Russian oligarchs have over him, and I’m not just just talking about the Pee Tape. Trump has likely made many off the record, non-recorded agreements with Putin that we don’t know about.  But some leverage they have over Trump can be exposed. For example, multiple people within the IRS and his accounting firm KNOW who Trump owes money to, but they can’t reveal it legally.

This is the reason the Trump Mob wants to frighten whistle-blowers so much. The Trump Mob WANTS potential witnesses to “get the message” not to go against The Bosses.  Trump talks about people being killed for “spying” His junior mobsters like Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and their aides, pick up on the intimidation theme and they keep trying to get the whistleblower’s name out in public. From the report.

In more than 100 public statements about the whistleblower over a period of just two months, the President publicly questioned the whistleblower’s motives, disputed the accuracy of the whistleblower’s account, and encouraged others to reveal the whistleblower’s identity.  Most chillingly, the President issued a threat against the whistleblower and those who provided information to the whistleblower regarding the President’s misconduct, suggesting that they could face the death penalty for treason.

Violent threats are powerful, but Trump and his mob also know how to threaten people’s jobs, careers, reputations and income. Those threats are especially powerful in a white-collar world.  For all his bragging talk Trump wouldn’t really hold the gun to shoot someone, but he’ll use his Twitter account to kill their reputation and bury them with massive lawsuits.

The charges about witness intimidation are directed toward Trump for his impeachment, but we should also remember that people who are NOT the President and commit similar crimes can and should be charged.

Reminder: Roger Stone was convicted of witness tampering and will lose his freedom.

If Trump’s mob lawyers efforts to block evidence fail, he will look to the mob lawyer at the head of the DOJ.  Barr is working hard to figure out how Trump’s crimes are not really crimes. Part of that is a technical legal issue. But they also have to developing the narratives that excuse his actions.  A big part of it involves persuasion of the public, who don’t know the law. This is where the Fox Mob News comes in.  If Fox can’t help downplay the actual crimes they work on the “everyone does it” line. Or they focus on people on the left and accuse them of the crimes that Trump commits.  We have seen all of these methods.  But as I pointed out above, even the people from Fox News didn’t like Trump’s attacks on witnesses, especially when they are in the military, like Lt. Col. Vindman.

Fighting Fox Mob Media is hard.  One way to do it is to point out the success of prosecutions of people like Roger Stone and others in Trump’s orbit who have committed mob like crimes. The public understands how threats and intimidation works. They also like to see when bullies get their comeuppance.

Cross posted to Spocko’s Brain

Justice in fiction vs reality. What I learned from Watchmen, Chernobyl and The Good Place

by Spocko

I just watched Episode 6 of The Watchmen. My friend Greg Basta said it was impressive and I agree. I’ll watch it again after reading this EXCELLENT analysis by Melanie McFarland in Salon. HBO’s “Watchmen” trolls history and heroic whiteness in the most extraordinary episode yet

Watchmen Season 1, episode 6: This Extraordinary Being, screencap

McFarland’s piece brought insight I missed, enriching my experience. It’s a MUST read for fans of great TV cinema writing. It reminds me of the work of two of my favorite writers on TV and cinema, Matt Zoller Seitz and Mick LaSalle.

I know that some people don’t like the super-hero genre and I totally understand why. What I like about this series (and this episode) is it explores who created these heroes and what function they serve for some people, but not all.

I was talking to some friends about the presidential race the other day. I recalled this comment from Joy Reid, but not the specifics, so I looked it up, Here’s the clip.

“So the idea of united and coming together, that sound fine for Pete Buttigieg to say to middle class white America that wants to come together with their uncle that’s a Trumper, but that is not going to work in communities of color.”

I listen to white middle-class voters. I get that they want a “return to normalcy” that Biden represents or Klobachar offers. But that “normalcy” also excused and supported a lot of injustice. Racial, gender and financial.  I get annoyed when I hear candidates talking about reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans to “get things done.”  Who are these Republicans they are talking about?  The same ones who have blocked the 100’s of bills the House has passed?   Joy Reid,

“There is no conversation of interest to talk about uniting, to be blunt, with the party that has given up not just its moral standing, but its soul, to the person who is president of the United States right now.”

The MSM likes to push centrist candidates. They want to keep a conservative corporate system happy. Incremental change is okay, don’t do anything too radical. Pundits talk about the need for “kitchen table issues” believing it will lead to people feeling passion for a leader who addresses those issues.  That’s true to an extent. I want to know candidates are addressing health care and education costs, but I also want someone to prosecute people who violated our Constitution and betrayed our ideals

I’ve been impressed by Warren’s acknowledgement and stories about how medical bankruptcies destroy lives and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she set up to stop abuses of financial institutions. I like Sanders’ understanding of the positive role Medicare for All will play in strengthening the country. I enjoy hearing Harris talk about prosecuting criminals in government and corporations.

Not everyone desires “nice things” that will help all of us.  Some people desire a leader whose actions won’t help them directly, but will hurt the people they hate and/or fear. This puzzling behavior came up talking with friends who don’t follow politics as closely as I do, who wonder why people would vote against their own interests. I talked about this piece that explains something I’ve seen but couldn’t articulate after two beers.

In January the New York Times’s Patricia Mazzei published a dispatch from Marianna, Florida — a small, politically conservative town that depends on jobs from a federal prison and thus has been deeply hurt by the government shutdown.  “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Minton told Mazzei. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.” 

He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.

Think about that line for a second. Roll it over in your head. In essence, Minton is declaring that one aim of the Trump administration is to hurt people — the right people. Making America great again, in her mind, involves inflicting pain.

This is not an accident. Trump’s political victory and continuing appeal depend on a brand of politics that marginalizes and targets groups disliked by his supporters. Trump supporters don’t so much love the Republican party as they hate Democrats, a phenomenon political scientists call “negative partisanship.” They like Trump not because he sells them on the GOP, but because they believe he’ll stick it to the Democrats harder than anyone else.

–Zack Beauchamp, Vox  Jan 8, 2019

The right taps into anger. The left can too. Anger at injustice, unfairness, discrimination. From the Salon piece on The Watchmen:

“He’s [Will Reeves] the inheritance of a town and a nation that’s in denial about its legacy of racial strife and the resultant disparity and unrest, a man fortified not by magic or gamma rays, but precisely directed rage.”

I can hate a system, I can hate people. I can work to change a system, I can work to change the minds and heart of people. I can say to them, “We are better than this.  We CAN have nice things.“

And we also have to work to bring down the people and institutions that lie and cover up horrible acts.  We live in a time where information silos enables a right wing media that systematically attacks on the truth.  To quote from the scientist Valery Legasov in Chernobyl, written by Craig Mazin.

Valery Legasov : What is the cost of lies? It’s not that we’ll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.  Chernobyl, 1:23:45 Episode 1 

So when people finally DO go down, and go to jail like Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort and soon Roger Stone, we need to celebrate those convictions and follow up by passing laws that reinforce our ideals so that the the next, smarter fascist will have to work harder.

I don’t want to hate my relatives who have identity fusion with Trump, a man who is cruel, lawless, corrupt, racist and sexist. But if I can’t reach them with the truth and  proof that the people supporting Trump and his violation of our Constitution have gone to jail; my job is to support leaders and people who say to us, “We owe it to each other, as humans, as Americans, to be better. To do better.”

I’d like them see the world as I see it, a place where justice will prevail and with a hope for a better future.

cross posted at Spocko’s Brain. 

US requires Ukraine to keep Javelin missiles 100’s of miles from battlefield 


by Spocko

Remember those additional javelin missiles that Ukrainian President Zelensky wanted? It turns out that the US requires they be kept 100’s of miles from the battlefield.

Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine

“Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine—hundreds of miles from the battlefield. “

“I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault—the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia.”

 — Foreign Policy, October 3rd, 2019  

A U.S. Marine fires a Javelin at a simulated enemy tank at Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii. (Photo: U.S. Marine Corps) From Raytheon Javelin Weapon System gallery

 So who wins with the sale of these missiles that aren’t available to use? Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Each missile costs $109,000 each.

When the discussion of military aide came up Sen. John McCain taunted Obama for giving the Ukrainians “blankets and meals,” instead of lethal support. Trump picked up on that attack on Obama during his meeting with Zelensky

A reporter asked about military aid and Trump replied that “we’re working with Ukraine and we want other countries to work with Ukraine.”

“Well, we’re working with Ukraine and we want other countries to work with Ukraine. When I say ‘work,’ I’m referring to money. They should put up more money. We put up a lot of money. I gave you anti-tank busters that — frankly, President Obama was sending you pillows and sheets, and I gave you anti-tank busters. And a lot of people didn’t want to do that. But I did it,” Trump said.

“And I really hope that Russia, because I believe that President Putin would like to do something. I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem. That would be a tremendous achievement. I know you’re trying to do that,” he added.

Trump wanted to position Obama as weak. Offering the missiles made Trump look like a tough guy, even if they weren’t an effective deterrent. From the Foreign Policy article:

But as part of the agreement of the sale, the Javelins are not deployed on the battlefield but stored hundreds of miles away in western Ukraine—far from the front lines of the Donbass, which could radically diminish their deterrent effect, said Mike Carpenter, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia and Eurasia under Obama.

“If the Russians know that the Javelins are not there, the deterrent effect is negated,” said Carpenter, though he noted that the missiles could be transferred to the battlefield in the event of an attack. Michael Kofman, a weapons expert with CNA, described the Javelins as an “insurance policy”—but one with little impact in the balance of power on the conflict.

The decision in 2017 to go ahead with the sale under Trump is often held up as evidence that, despite the president’s puzzling affinity for Russia, his administration has pursued a hawkish Russia policy.

Shortly after the first batch of Javelins arrived in Ukraine in 2018, they were tested by the Ukrainian military in what then-President Petro Poroshenko described as a “dream come true.” The Ukrainian military has been trained on how to use the Javelins, but with no tank battles in eastern Ukraine since 2015, they haven’t yet had the chance to use them for real.

These last two paragraphs are important

“It became this sort of embodiment of U.S. support for Ukraine,” said Charap, who previously served as a senior advisor to the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control. “It’s much more headline-grabbing than helping them with their logistics, which by the way is a real problem.”

“While generals and politicians in Kyiv played up the Javelins, in my own experience, soldiers in the field talked more about getting insufficient quantities of the nonlethal aid that they really needed—secure communications, armored vehicles, counterbattery radars,” said Olga Oliker, the director for Europe and Central Asia at the International Crisis Group.

Watching the hearings reminds people that Russia started this war and thousands have been killed and wounded.

“Some 13,000 people have been killed, a quarter of them civilians, and as many as 30,000 wounded in the war in eastern Ukraine since it broke out in April 2014.

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) “estimates the total number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine…at 40,000-43,000” from April 14, 2014 to January 31, 2019, the statement said, including “12,800-13,000 killed.” (link)

There are many ways we can support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.  I’m glad someone in the military and/or state department understood they needed a way to let Trump look like a tough guy, but limit the possibility of upsetting Russia with active deployment of weapons that could lead to esclation.

 I’m not an expert, but this looks like a fairly clever move that solved three problems at once, so I assume that no one currently in the White House had anything to do with it.

.

Smear ’em live! Fox attacks impeachment witnesses in real time 

by Spocko

[UPDATE] Trump is tweeting attacks against Marie Yovanovitch THIS MORNING while she is testifying. Witness intimidation in real time!  More details at Crooks and Liars

Fox News had to figure out a way to subvert the live testimony of credible witnesses and control the message. They couldn’t do their usual pick and choose of clips that support the President and his message, so they remembered the immortal words of serial sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly, “We’ll do it live!”

Eric Kleefeld at Media Matters has a great piece on this, (Fox News uses on-screen graphics to push pro-Trump lies during impeachment hearing) with screenshots of images from the hearing showing various tactics. I annotated a few just to highlight their style. Expect variations on this during all their live streams of impeachment hearings.

Fox will smear Former Ambassador Yovanovitch live during her testimony with on screen accusations.

Now I don’t know for certain that Fox will be posting false, defaming statements during all the live testimonies of public figures. But if they, do we must officially call out the producers of these live comments. My friends at Media Matters are already keeping track, but some witness lawyers need to get on board. If Fox News is called out, and keeps doing this, when the defamation lawsuits are filed there should be email records to subpoena.

Just because a company calls itself “News” doesn’t mean they are following any journalism principles. And even legitimate journalism entities, if they cross over into actual malice, can be sued by a public figure for defamation.

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe there are ways to prove that Fox producers have knowledge that some of the claims made are false. If producers are sent notice the claims are false, and they keep making them, wouldn’t that be a,”reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”?

Fox is so desperate to curry favor with Trump they act like him. They are demonstrating the same vindictive behavior as Trump.  Would a jury conclude that attacking a person’s reputation with known false claims using on-screen graphics during a live stream, constitute actual malice?

Fox producers have a choice about what they put on screen, they can choose to repeat Trump’s defamatory claims about witnesses. They didn’t have to repeat debunked claims about Biden, but they chose to repeat them.

Controlling what people see on TV (even with the sound off) was a specialty of Roger Ailes.

Control the medium, control the message.

[Ailes] watches TV, he studies TV, mostly with the sound off, so that he can observe one of the rules he does follow—if someone’s doing something to make you turn the sound on, then they’re doing something interesting. On a wall in his office, there are screens broadcasting Fox News and Fox Business Network, as well as CNN, HLN, MSNBC, and CNBC. He watches them all, from the corner of his eye, and if you give him three seconds, he’ll give you the world….

I tell my people that if they want to be artists of television, the screen is their canvas, but they have to repaint it every three seconds.” [Emphasis added.] (Why Roger Ailes watches TV on mute. link)

This is expected from Fox. This is their way of editorializing in real time. My question in these cases is often “Is there anything we can do about it?”

Fox’s editorializing live during the testimony influences the MSM. Producers and news directors KNOW that these lies are being pushed, so they feel the need to bring them up again and again to debunk them. Repeating them in the process. Strengthening them.

Those stories, even when debunked, start to build in normal people’s minds. People who don’t follow politics closely think, “Maybe there IS something strange about Hunter Biden?” (… butter emails!)

One thing we can do is be prepared for how Fox’s spin will influence their watchers. My friend, Robert Yasumura, pointed out what to listen for:

Listen to Jim Jordan’s talking points; you’ll be hearing them verbatim from your asshole uncle at Thanksgiving.

— Robert Yasumura (@teamyasumura) November 13, 2019

I replied with how you might respond.

Me to asshole uncle at Thanksgiving:
Do me a favor. Let me videotape you saying you regret voting for Trump & he should be removed from office. When it’s published publicly on Facebook I’ll pass you some turkey.
Asshole U: That’s extortion!
Me: Correct, but there was no quid pro quo!

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) November 13, 2019

Most of us don’t want to argue with assholes. I especially don’t want to do it at Thanksgiving. MAGA hat people aren’t going to change their minds over pumpkin pie. But there ARE people you can reach. People who listen to NPR, PBS and the News Hour. These people might be getting the taint of Fox News messages without realizing it.

First, check out what people are absorbing from the headlines they get from PBS and the mainstream media. Listen to what they say. They won’t be believing the crazy stories, but they might be getting other  ideas, like “The senate will never vote to convict Trump” or “Trump didn’t get busted by Mueller and he is going to get away with the Ukrainian deal.”

This is conventional wisdom. They might be getting it from PBS and NPR. They might even be getting it from Rachel Maddow! The experts she has on to talk about what is happening right now/ Not what will happen after the next horrific Trump action.

But if you are reading progressive blogs and listening to The Majority Report you have a opportunity to remind them of how things can change and that Trump’s people HAVEN’T “gotten away with it.”

Yes, Trump is still in office. But Michael Cohen is in jail. If Trump wasn’t President he likely would be in jail for those crimes too.

 Paul Manafort is in jail. Papadopoulos served time. Flynn, Gates and others are waiting to be sentenced. 

So when you talk about “politics” with people you think are like-minded at Thanksgiving, you might find out that even though they never watch Fox, they are still being tainted by it. Listen, remind them of who HAS gone to jail. They might bring up their fear of Democrats blowing it or not following through. When I hear that fear I remind them of two things:

1) There are multiple cases against Trump running at the same time. When the results come out they will be damning to Trump and his cronies.

2) Count on the incompetence, vindictiveness, greed and hubris of Trump and his cronies.
Maybe Trump’s lawyers will be able to parse the words, delay the testimonies and withhold the documents for months.  But there are fewer people in the White House to prevent Trump violating the constitution. Letting “Trump be Trump,” as we have seen with his actions abandoning the Kurds, is deadly.

Trump thinks he can walk on water, but he can’t. He has been walking on the backs of sneaky lawyers, piles of his father’s money and then shiploads of Russian mob money. He’ll walk on the crushed bodies of the people he threw under the bus to keep walking.

Impeachment is forcing him to walk faster. That bloated body of his isn’t going to respond well to more pressure. I’m a believer that the multiple methods used concurrently will bring him down.  He’s either going to be taken down by the congressional evidence produced of the crimes he has committed, or he’s going to trip over Rudy Giuliani’s body.  If both of those fail, he will bring himself down.  The clock is ticking.  I’m hopeful.

.

Who charges Don Jr. and Breitbart for witness tampering? 

by Spocko

Wednesday Don Jr. linked to a Breitbart article naming the alleged Whistleblower.

“Don Jr., Thug That He Is, Outs Person He Claims Is Whistleblower“
Following Rand Paul’s lead, Don Jr. decides to tweet out Breitbart’s article identifying the person they *think* is the whistleblower. That puts a target on the person’s back, whistleblower or not.    By Aliza Worthington  Crooks and Liars 

I knew this was coming and it pisses me off. The good news is that most organizations have held off naming the person. But that doesn’t stop the intimidation.

 Aliza Worthington addresses this excellently in this C&L piece, so I’ll repeat it here:

 We won’t link to it here, because WE respect the law. WE recognize that the information might be incorrect. WE don’t want to put the target on the back of either a misidentified person, or a correctly identified whistleblower who is entitled to full legal protection of privacy and personal safety the president’s demon spawn just obliterated.

It’s worth noting that as of this writing, none of the cable news channels have reported this person’s name, either, even Fox News. (Though, it’s also worth noting that many on Fox News are saying the whistleblower is NOT entitled to privacy OR protection…) But unlike the Trump crime family, cable networks have legal divisions that are concerned with following the law and protecting their institutions from lawsuits and worse, so no mention of the name that has been put out there as the whistleblower’s — correctly or not. (Emphasis mine.)

I’ve written about witness tampering and the whistleblowers recently hoping that some experts will actually go into detail on what it will take to bust people for witness intimidation coming from Trump and his Republicans supporters. Trump threatens whistleblowers and witnesses, isn’t that a crime? #AskPreet Bharara  If they don’t go into detail today I’ll have to call another expert.

 I don’t know why, but when I called and said, “This is Spocko. I write for Hullabaloo, Crooks and Liars and my blog Spocko’s Brain and I’d like to ask you about successful prosecutions of witness tampering cases.” they didn’t return my call. Vulcan discrimination? 

I also would like an expert to remind people that White House lawyers haven’t had a problem going after cable TV shows, news organizations and individual blogs and bloggers for putting up information that they consider defamation. They even went after this blog for linking to a Lawrence O’Donnell story. (Link )  

 Lawrence O’Donnell, publicly retracted his story, and so did we at Hullabaloo in this post We are very, very sorry. Super sorry. Very super-sorry. Legal threats work. Trump and his White House know this.

And, since the whistleblowers lawyers won’t confirm or deny that the person named is their client, they won’t be sending out letters to anyone. But someone should.

Where is the Department of Justice? They are the ones who are supposed to enforce the witness tampering and whistleblower statutes. I see people on Fox arguing about what the whistleblower laws do or don’t cover. They want to use the person’s background to attack the whistleblower, It’s what they do. They WANT to move the focus to the person instead of the contents of the story.

These discussions of the details of the whistleblower statue ignore the larger point of the witness intimidation. The President does it publicly. It’s still a crime. I’ll link again to the Barb McQuade video from  March 2019 on The Rachel Maddow show, Making the threat is a crime, even if it doesn’t work.

“It’s a crime to knowingly intimidate, threaten or corruptly persuade another person with intent to influence, prevent or delay their testimony. -Barbara McQuade

I believe in the importance of  people remaining publicly Anonymous in cases like this. Trump Senior’s witness intimidation SHOULD be added to his articles of impeachment.

 But Donald Junior is not an elected official. He can be charged with a crime.  He can be sued. The Breitbart organization can be sued. They can go down like Gawker did. (What is NOT ironic is that the lawyer that successfully sued Gawker is the lawyer the White House used to go after Lawrence O’Donnell and this blog and successfully got a retraction.)

Don Jr. really getting into his role as a witch hunter.

I looked at the Justice Department statues on tampering with witnesses and informants and it seems to cover a number of proceedings.
1729. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROCESSES — TAMPERING WITH VICTIMS, WITNESSES, OR INFORMANTS — 18 U.S.C. 1512  (Link to Justice Dept statue.)

It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings.

Donald Jr. can be charged with a crime. Who should be charging him? Why won’t they? How will he try and wriggle out of it? What advice will he ignore that will dig him in deeper? Why won’t he be charged then? National Enquirering minds expect Don Jr. will weasel out of charges.

If we had an Attorney General who worked for the people, instead of the President, Don Jr. could go to jail for this. But as they say, “It’s good to be the Prince.”

.

Trump threatens whistleblowers and witnesses, isn’t that a crime? #AskPreet Bharara

By Spocko

“He should not have to worry that the leader of the free world, the commander in chief goes on television and suggests maybe execution is the right consequence for his playing by the rules and doing the right thing as an exercise of conscience. It’s extraordinary and it’s an abomination really.” – Preet Bharara 

Back in September I asked Former US Attorney, SDNY Preet Bharara this question here on Hullabaloo, How will the WH mob avoid prosecution for witness tampering?

He and Anne talked about it in the October 1 Cafe Insider episode. Preet, calling Trump’s threat to the whistle blower “an abomination.” Anne was disgusted by it, saying, that is what dictators do. ( Here’s a longer audio link on whistle blower from the show, 2 minutes 23 seconds.)

But what I really want to know, from former US Attorneys who know politics is, “Will Trump be charged for threatening the whistle blower and witnesses?”

I want someone to answer questions like:
Does the witness tampering statue apply to whistleblowers?  What about the others in government who gave the whistle blower information?

I sent Preet this letter below and I even left a voicemail message asking the question. I’m not looking for just a legal response.  I see how Trump works. Threatening people is what he does. And I think he’ll get away with it using all his tricks and legal dodges.

I want someone to look at Trump’s methods as a whole and say, “Yes, this is a crime. Here is what it will take to prosecute him on this crime, in a world where Bill Barr is in charge of the Department of Justice. Here is what it would take politically to charge him. Here is what it would take to educate the public that even though the threatening of the witnesses happens publicly on TV and Twitter, it is still a crime.”

Below I point out HOW Trump will try to do it, how he will try to normalize what he does and ask what we can do about it.

I’m very much interested in how powerful people intimidate others and what it takes to withstand them. I want to know methods the less powerful can use to fight the effectively. Then I want to see examples of the people making those threats suffering negative consequences for using them.

Anne Milgram  @AnneMilgram and Preet Bharara @PreetBharara

NOW the detailed questions. Because you are lawyers I threw some links to the statute, but since you talk about politics I have some questions about the realities of making charges. I’ve heard former US Attorney Barbara McQuade @BarbMcQuade answer some of these on Rachael Maddow, but I want to hear your thoughts.

How To Respond to Armed Threats: Man who brandished gun at driver with Warren sticker charged with felony terroristic threat 

By Spocko

MOORHEAD, Minn. — A 27-year-old West Fargo, N.D., man is in jail after threatening a woman with a handgun because he took issue with her political bumper sticker, according to the Moorhead Police Department.  (Driver with Trump bumper sticker waved gun at driver with Warren bumper sticker)

Because the brandishing of the gun is illegal, something could be done about this kind of intimidation. Tracking these kind of threats can be hard, especially without evidence. I’m glad it was reported and verified. I’m especially pleased that the perpetrator, Joseph Schumacher, is facing charges of felony terroristic threats. He was also charged with having a loaded handgun inside a vehicle without a permit, a misdemeanor.

Threats and intimidation by men with guns are often downplayed or ignored, especially in domestic violence situations. But individuals and groups can take steps to change laws.

Open carrying guns at political events is a terrorist threat

In some states it is legal for a person to show up open-carrying a gun at a political rally. If asked why they are carrying their guns they will quote the state law and the second half of the 2nd Amendment.  They won’t acknowledge their true intent. They want to intimate people.

In Schumacher’s case, the police were able to connect his previous actions to his brandishing his gun which met the conditions for the charge. As the case moves forward we will see if the charge will hold up in court. But the point I want to make is that this same linking of actions can lead to felony charges for people carrying guns at political events.

This is not the actual bumper sticker in question.

Why is open carry legal? The NRA worked hard to change the laws in states to expand where guns can be carried and remove requirements for permits on who can carry. They built on the rural/urban divide in states with hunters to support open carry with their: “Ah shucks, we’re just fixin to go huntin’ lady, don’t get hysterical!” anecdotes.  I heard them more than once in town halls across the country.

 “When I was in high school kids had shotguns in the racks of their pickup trucks from hunting before school. Why should I be arrested for just going down to Walmart to buy ammo for duck hunting?” 

But the men showing up at political events with an AR-15 aren’t on their way to hunt ducks, and they know it.  Intimidation is the point.

The NRA wants to water-down the intimation factor of a physical presence of a person with a gun. Finally, following the Walmart mass shooting, some retail corporations somewhat addressed the bogus premise of open carry. (They SHOULD ban open carry and conceal carry in the store totally, but that’s another post.)

Threatening and Gaslighting For Dummies. by Donald Trump. Forward by convicted felon, Michael Cohen 

Threatening and intimidating others is big in the Trump era. Like Trump, many avoid acknowledging what they are actually doing to escape consequences. It’s a little game for them. We see it in the mob speak Trump and his cronies use.  But not everyone has 30 lawyers, his father’s fortune, an entire media outlet and the US Attorney General to cover for them.  People can be busted for their threats.

Here are suggestions on how to deal with people making threats with guns. Three steps, short term, medium term and long term.

Guys Dressed Like Magnum P.I. Open Carry Guns to Stalk Moms

A few months ago two guys in Hawaiian shirts followed a group in Missouri on a Moms Demand Action protest march across town. The marchers took photos of the guys and asked what should they do.

Some gunners wear cameo, but these guys want to be seen intimidating the group

Some people said, “Call the police!”  Great! That is one solution. What then?

Be prepared for the response! In my experience the people doing open carry know the law extremely well. They know not to “brandish” a gun. They expect to encounter people questioning them, especially the police. They often alert the police in advance that they are going to do this. They will video tape their interactions so that they can show how they are the victims being harassed for doing something perfectly legal. When police show up they will explain their perfectly legal stalking of the group while carrying their weapons.  Given those possible actions, what else can people do?

1) Bust them in real time by knowing the law.  For example, it’s often explicitly illegal to carry guns on school campuses or government court houses. Change the route of the walk, then have the police waiting for open carriers when they cross over the school or court campus line. (Be aware they follow all public pronouncements of events and infiltrate groups to obtain intel on actions and responses.)

2) Get photos of the people to identify them and the organization that they are part of  
Interestingly they will often offer up this info willingly. They believe their record is clear–but check them! Domestic violence cases aren’t always recorded correctly. A long time organizer friend said to go up to the men carrying the guns and ask, “Can I help you?”  Let them talk. Ask them questions.  RECORD EVERYTHING THEY SAY AND DO.

Privacy for me but not for thee
The NRA got laws passed that protect the identity of people with concealed carry permits, I understand the need for this in certain cases. But the people who want to intimidate using open carry might call for privacy because they want to maintain their power to intimidate anonymously. They will say it’s because they don’t want the “bad guys” to know they are carrying.  In their world everyone is a potential bad guy. 

You will note that I didn’t identity the exact location of these guys, beyond the state of Missouri. That’s because when open carriers are identified for their armed threats, they go after the people and families they can find to attack and intimidate them online and in person.  I don’t want to put anyone in the area at risk. (I’ve said before that National GVP groups should do this research and follow up on behalf of local groups.)

This is where we get back to Schumacher’s threat and charge. Correlation of the open carriers with their group is important, since often other members in the group do NOT have clean records. They have been know to harass individuals online. These members often openly make threats on Facebook within the group’s postings. These can show the intent of a person’s actions.

Not all members of groups threatening people online are smart enough to hide their online posts.
When police work to determine if someone is a “true threat” they look to see if the person has a history of threats, have the means, motive and are in the same physical location.
Hawaiian shirt guys might know all the rules for open carry, and still make threats online that cross the line.

Correlation can build a case to move people into the “true” threats category for a criminal case.  If it doesn’t rise to that level, it can build a case against the person and the group on their FB page. It can also lead to possible civil action in the future.

Threatening speech is not protected speech

Armed people want to control the narrative. They want to tell you it doesn’t matter what you say, they will have the last word. That’s not always the case.

There is also a qualitative difference when someone carrying a gun wants you to know they disagree with your political views.  The line an ‘armed society is a polite society” really means, “Be polite to me, or I will shoot you.”

The Guardian complied a list of recent cases of people who threatened political figures or others on behalf of Trump. Many have been convicted and are serving jail time. I’m glad their stories made the news because I want everyone to know that threatening speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment. You can do something when armed people threaten you over your political views.  

3) Change the laws in the community — Long Term Solution 
I’m a big proponent of figuring out how to make change at small levels, learn from the process and then scale them up.

Recently my friends in Nebraska got a law passed in Lincoln that mandated secure storage in vehicles. (Link 1011) This is a big deal. I want to acknowledge how important this action is.
People get depressed when they don’t see action on the national or state level. But as this case proves, change is possible.

The good news is that attitudes about the appropriateness of guns in public political debates are changing. The laws that reflect those attitudes can change too.

 Our superpower? Impeachment.

by Spocko

Trump’s tweet placed in the mouth of super villain Red Skull.
|

We are all Captain America.

I WILL TOTALLY DESTROY AND OBLITERATE THE ECONOMY OF TURKEY!!! I’VE DONE BEFORE–!!! #PresidentSupervillain pic.twitter.com/1co7Dns4f6

— Pres. Supervillain (@PresVillain) October 7, 2019

Area Conservative Excuses Trump Loving Politicians. MSM Forgives and Forgets 

By Spocko

I don’t usually care what right-wing conservative op-ed writers have to say, except when I want to mock them.  (David Brooks: The Firefighters’ Mistake: The Rush To Extinguishment. Getting the fire’s point of view.)

However, this op-ed by Peter Wehner said some things similar to what was in a great article in the Atlantic: The Most Dangerous Way to Lose Yourself ; “Identity fusion” might explain why people act against their own interests.

“Fundamentally, fusion is an opportunity to realign the sense of self. It creates new systems by which people can value themselves. A life that consists of living up to negative ideas about yourself does not end well. Nor does a life marked by failing to live up to a positive self-vision. But adopting the values of someone who is doing well is an escape. If Donald Trump is doing well, you are doing well. Alleged collusion with a foreign power might be bad for democracy, but good for an individual leader, and therefore good for you. “Fusion satisfies a lot of need for people,” Dovidio says. “When you fuse with a powerful leader, you feel more in control. If that person is valued, you feel valued.”

Fusion with the Donald.   — photo: AARON LAVINSKY – STAR TRIBUNE

People on the left would point out that something that Trump did wouldn’t help them personally, so why would they support it? From the article:

“Even if this personal enrichment didn’t come to fruition for his voters, the researchers found that fusion with Trump only increased after his election. The presidency itself made him more powerful, and hence a more attractive target to fuse with”

Trump is getting more powerful and richer in office. I identify with him, therefore I am too. Trump is sticking it to the libs. Therefore I am too.

When Trump gets away with breaking the law or has multiple affairs and his wife doesn’t leave him, he is crushing it in a kind of life many want. 

Trump is their avatar on the world stage, they see him as rich and powerful, so they are too.

If Trump is under attack, they are too.

In Wehner’s piece he talks about cognitive accommodation:

All of this is tied to the psychology of accommodation. As a conservative-leaning clinical psychologist I know explained to me, when new experiences don’t fit into an existing schema — Mr. Trump becoming the leader of the party that insisted on the necessity of good character in the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president, for example — cognitive accommodation occurs.

When the accommodation involves compromising one’s sense of integrity, the tensions are reduced when others join in the effort. This creates a powerful sense of cohesion, harmony and group think. The greater the compromise, the more fierce the justification for it — and the greater the need to denounce those who call them out for their compromise. “In response,” this person said to me, “an ‘us versus them’ mentality emerges, sometimes quite viciously.”

“What used to be a sense of belonging,” I was told, “devolves into primitive tribalism, absolute adherence to the leader over adherence to a code of ethics.”

Sounds like how a mob forms right before a lynching, doesn’t it? Many fine people.

——
Wehner, a speech writer for W. Bush and an adviser to Romney, wants to push the idea that Republican politicians are really good, moral people and they will snap back to Idealized Republican once Trump is gone. 

As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans “are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.”

“At this point,” this person went on, “condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.”

The drive to explain adherence to Trump right now is HUGE, so once that is explained, the Republican think tanks need to lay the ground work for the minute they abandon him. They are preparing for the Republicans return to MSM respectability. 

Republican politicians expect that the mainstream media will welcome them back with open arms when Trump goes down.

Future Media To GOP “Welcome Back! Now tell us what is wrong with the Democrats.” 

The mainstream media will LOVE to have Trump supporting Republicans on their shows the instant it looks like he is toast. The first will be the Republicans who sort of stood up to Trump, even though they voted for him 100 percent of the time. Then those who “retired.” but didn’t attack Trump when they had a chance. Next the quiet ones who didn’t speak up but didn’t retire.

The media will welcome them as they talk about bipartisan-ism and how we need to “come together as a country and heal.”  some of l these people will be Republican lite-Democrats. I expect  they will talk about how we must cut the deficit because “The Economy” blah, blah, blah. And we can’t too crazy with health care because of “Jobs.”

The saddest time will be during the Rehabilitation Tour of 2020 when MSM hosts will have on Republican guests who will talk about what they did behind the scenes to stop worse things from happening. But they did nothing to stop Trump until the House forced him down.  I can’t wait for the lack of hard hitting questions! Don’t look back at the caged children, look forward to undermining Democrat’s Socialist Agenda.

There is an old Vulcan Proverb:

Media that forgive War Criminals–and Politicians who enabled Trump–should neither live long, nor prosper. 

.